I do not particularly agree with this rule as once a game is entered that version should be it. I can't say feel strongly enough about it to say I will never enter the IFComp again if the rule stands though. But, when judging I will only vote on the games I originally downloaded, so will ignore any updates.

Currently working on "The Blank Wall" in ADRIFT 5 and "Again and Again" in Inform 7.Delron, the home of Otter Interactive Fiction.

All of this is a non-issue as far as voting is concerned anyway. Why? Because the distribution of players over time during the voting period most likely follows a negative exponential curve anyway (assumption based on the appearance of reviews which does follow such a pattern). So no matter what an author tries, her game will be judged based on the initial version anyway, regardless of later updates.

Why does it stil have a positive effect? Because authors will think updating their games might give them a boost, leaving future generations with better games.

Hannes wrote:So no matter what an author tries, her game will be judged based on the initial version anyway, regardless of later updates.

Not necessarily. Anyone who comes to the comp late and downloads the games from that point will most likely end up with an updated version. Even if the original version is the one in the zip file, if they discover a new and updated version exists, they'll most likely download that one instead.

I think it all comes down to what the IF Comp is for. If it is for getting exposure for and improving games, then the new rule could fit, but if it is for competition's sake, then the new rule is a horrible idea because it just makes things more complicated. If a game has a mistake/bug in it and post-comp fixes don't usually get played, then that is tough luck. If the author is not willing to fix it after the comp, why should I care about their game if they don't care about it? I personally side with David and Po on this, but like Rotter I don't think that would stop me from entering, though I would seriously consider entering a game in other comps first.

Hannes wrote:So no matter what an author tries, her game will be judged based on the initial version anyway, regardless of later updates.

Not necessarily. Anyone who comes to the comp late and downloads the games from that point will most likely end up with an updated version. Even if the original version is the one in the zip file, if they discover a new and updated version exists, they'll most likely download that one instead.

Slamdance stopped running their games division in 2007 or 2008. If I remember correctly, all the finalists withdrew when Super Columbine Massacre RPG was disqualified. "Whom the Telling Changed" was a finalist in 2006. I assisted in the judging of a multiplayer game for Indiecade this year.

The Jay is Games competition also allowed for updates and was hugely successful.

Hannes wrote:So no matter what an author tries, her game will be judged based on the initial version anyway, regardless of later updates.

Not necessarily. Anyone who comes to the comp late and downloads the games from that point will most likely end up with an updated version. Even if the original version is the one in the zip file, if they discover a new and updated version exists, they'll most likely download that one instead.

David Whyld wrote:You know for a fact that updating games will have zero effect and everyone will judge games based purely on the first version?

Coming from a man whose primary complaint is about a "spirit?"

Coming from a man who keeps replying to my comments without actually saying anything of note. Do you have anything you want to say to me, Duncan, or do you simply see a post of mine and can't resist the urge to reply?

I have to admit, I'm impressed with your style of arguing. You say something obscure, respond with a cryptic comment when I ask what you mean then hit back with "lame" or something else equally as pointless when I again ask what you mean. It's taking so long to get a cohesive response out of you that I suspect the IFComp 2012 will have come and gone before you get to the point.

Would you enter a game using first round of judging as a beta-test period? No, but you hold other authors to a different ethical standard, namely a lower one. You expect others to provide reams of facts to satisfy you, but are disappointed in a "spirit" which has been lost which can neither be verified nor refuted. These are double standards.

I called your comment "lame" because, as I said, it is all you seem to repeat. That makes it lame, i.e., ineffective.

Would you enter a game using first round of judging as a beta-test period? No, but you hold other authors to a different ethical standard, namely a lower one.

I personally wouldn't enter a joke game in the IFComp, either, but plenty of people have done just that in the past. Why assume people won't using the first round of judging as a beta-test period? Odds on someone will try it.

You expect others to provide reams of facts to satisfy you, but are disappointed in a "spirit" which has been lost which can neither be verified nor refuted. These are double standards.

I feel that allowing updates during the judging period of a competition ruins the spirit of it. That's my personal opinion and, believe it or me, I'm entitled to it. Maybe allowing updates doesn't ruin the spirit of the comp for other people. Good for them.